In an era of rising geopolitical tensions, climate crises, and widespread demands for justice, international courts have become central institutions for maintaining global peace.
These courts and tribunals do not just settle disputes—they help prevent wars, hold perpetrators accountable, clarify obligations under international law, and provide mechanisms for sufferers of human rights abuses to seek redress.
This article explores how international courts are fulfilling these roles today, with recent cases, statistics, strengths & challenges.
Key International Courts & Their Mandates
Below are some of the main international courts/tribunals and what they are empowered to do.
| Court / Tribunal | Jurisdiction / Mandate | Key Functions in Peace & Justice |
|---|---|---|
| International Criminal Court (ICC) | Prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crime of aggression. Operates under Rome Statute. | Deterrence against crimes; justice for victims; complementing national courts when they are unwilling or unable to act. |
| International Court of Justice (ICJ) | Handles disputes between states; issues advisory opinions on legal matters referred by UN organs | Peaceful resolution of state-to-state conflicts; clarifying legal obligations (e.g., climate, boundaries). |
| Special / Ad hoc Tribunals (e.g. Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine) | Focused mandates for specific conflicts or crimes, often when standard international courts lack jurisdiction. | Accountability in special conflict situations; closing legal gaps; reinforcing international norms. |
Recent Cases & Developments: Facts & Figures
Here are the most recent developments showing how international courts are playing direct roles in global peace-building:
| Case / Development | What happened | Significance for Peace / Global Order |
|---|---|---|
| Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (2025) | Created on 25 June 2025 by agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe. Mandated to prosecute individuals bearing greatest responsibility for Russia’s invasion, including for the 2022 invasion and 2014 Crimea annexation. | Fills jurisdictional gaps where ICC cannot act due to non-membership; signals that legal accountability for aggression is being taken seriously by many states. |
| International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change (July 2025) | ICJ unanimously ruled that states failing to protect environment/climate (per treaties & customary law) may commit internationally wrongful acts, have duties to prevent harm, compensate, etc. | Expands the legal basis for global cooperation on environmental protection; strengthens rights of affected and vulnerable states; helps prevent future conflicts caused by climate displacement or resource stress. |
| Universal Jurisdiction cases (2024-2025) | 95 extraterritorial / universal jurisdiction cases prosecuted in 16 countries; 36 new cases opened or made public in 2024; 27 suspects convicted (first instance or appeal), nearly double the number from 2023. | Demonstrates increasing use of legal tools beyond borders to hold individuals accountable; helps deter crimes that would otherwise go unpunished. |
| ICC’s ongoing investigations and indictments | Over 50 individuals indicted; some from Ukraine, Venezuela, African countries. Arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders (e.g. Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant) for alleged war crimes in Gaza; also cases in Ukraine, etc. | Strong message that even powerful actors may face accountability; raises awareness of international norms; contributes to international pressure and, potentially, to peaceful resolution. |
How International Courts Contribute to Global Peace
- Deterrence of Atrocities & War Crimes
When individuals know they may be held accountable in international forum, it raises the cost of committing grave wrongs. Warnings, investigations and indictments serve as deterrent. - Legal Clarity & Obligations
Courts like ICJ provide authoritative opinions on obligations (climate change, treaties) so states are bound by clear rules, reducing ambiguities that can lead to conflict. - Victim-Centered Justice & Reparation
Victims of war crimes, genocide, or other abuses benefit when courts include reparations, victim participation, or acknowledgment. This supports healing, reduces grievances. - Preventing Impunity
Many states lack capacity or will to prosecute major crimes. International courts and universal jurisdiction cases help ensure serious crimes do not go unpunished. - Peaceful Dispute Resolution
Courts like ICJ allow states to resolve territorial, treaty, environmental disputes without recourse to force. This reduces risk of war. - Norm Building & International Law Strengthening
By ruling in past cases, courts build precedents and contribute to norms (e.g. regarding aggression, environmental damage, human rights) which gradually shape state behavior.
Challenges & Limitations
Despite successes, international courts face obstacles that can weaken their peacebuilding role.
| Challenge | What It Is | Implication for Global Peace |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Jurisdiction / Non-ratification | Many countries are not party to institutions like ICC; some powerful states refuse to accept jurisdiction. | Limits ability to hold all perpetrators accountable; creates voids that diminish deterrence. |
| State Non-Compliance | Even when courts issue rulings or warrants, some states ignore orders, refuse cooperation (e.g. arrests), or enact countermeasures. | Undermines authority of courts; may encourage future defiance; reduces enforceability of international law. |
| Political Resistance & Sanctions | Some states use political or legal means to shield their actors; also impose sanctions on court members (e.g. US sanctioning ICC judges under Executive Order 14203). | Creates chilling effect; may discourage international cooperation; weakens perception of impartial justice. |
| Practical & Resource Constraints | Investigations are expensive, evidence hard to gather, especially in conflict zones; courts rely on states for enforcement. | Slow proceedings; cases may stall; victims may wait long for justice; deterrence weakened. |
| Challenges of Proving Environmental / Transboundary Harm | Climate change and environmental cases involve complex causation, many actors, diffuse harms. | Difficult to attribute responsibility; may slow adoption of rulings; some states may resist binding obligations. |
Important Statistical & Peace Indicators
To understand the environment in which international courts operate, here are some recent global peace metrics:
- According to the Global Peace Index 2025, global peacefulness continues to decline. Key indicators that precede major conflicts (militarisation, conflict deaths, societal safety) are at levels not seen since World War II.
- There are 59 active state-based conflicts in 2024, with about 152,000 conflict-related deaths recorded that year.
- The Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review reported 36 new cases opened in 2024, with 27 convictions (first instance or appeal), nearly double convictions from 2023.
These numbers show how many peace threats persist—and why international courts’ roles are more vital than ever.
Case Studies Demonstrating Impact
Case A: ICJ & Climate Change Advisory Opinion (2025)
- In July 2025, the ICJ delivered a unanimous advisory opinion declaring that states have obligations under international law to prevent significant environmental harm, protect climate, cooperate in good faith, and may be held responsible for breaches.
- This opinion empowers vulnerable nations and civil society actors to demand legal accountability, push for stronger domestic climate laws, and create diplomatic pressure.
Case B: Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine
- Due to limitations of ICC jurisdiction (Russia not being a state party for certain crimes of aggression), the Special Tribunal was formed in 2025 to prosecute those responsible for aggression.
- By providing a legal forum for aggression charges, it contributes to deterrence and asserts that even acts by states in wartime can be subject to legal challenge.
Case C: ICC Arrest Warrants for Israeli Leaders
- In late 2024, the ICC issued warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
- While implementation depends on state cooperation, the warrants are symbolically strong—suggesting that international justice frameworks can apply to democratic states and leaders from powerful regions.
How International Courts Can Be More Effective
To further their peacebuilding roles, international courts and the global community need to:
- Promote broader ratification of treaties like the Rome Statute; encourage major powers to accept jurisdiction.
- Increase state compliance: diplomatic leverage, sanctions, cooperation mechanisms.
- Enhance funding, resources, and logistical capacity for evidence gathering, victim support.
- Strengthen victim participation and ensure reparations, not just prosecutions.
- Push for clearer legal standards for transboundary harms (environment), climate, aggression.
- Improve enforcement capacity or support states that can help execute court rulings (e.g. in cooperation with international organizations).
International courts are indispensable actors in the quest for global peace. Recent developments—like the ICJ’s climate duty opinion, the formation of the Special Tribunal for Ukraine, increased universal jurisdiction cases, and high-profile ICC indictments—demonstrate both their growing relevance and complexity.
While these institutions confront serious obstacles, their ability to hold individuals and states accountable, clarify international law, and reduce impunity offers hope for a more stable world.
FAQs
Are international court rulings always binding?
Not always. Some rulings (like ICJ’s advisory opinions) are not legally binding but carry moral and legal weight; other judgments (e.g. in contentious cases) are binding but enforcement depends on states’ cooperation.
How do international courts prevent war or conflict escalation?
By providing mechanisms for accountability, deterring perpetrators, clarifying legal norms, and offering peaceful dispute resolution. When leaders believe they might be held responsible, they may think twice before resorting to aggression.
What limits the effectiveness of courts in achieving global peace?
Key limits include non-membership or refusal to accept jurisdiction by some states; lack of cooperation (e.g. non-arrests, non-compliance); political pressures; resource constraints; and difficulties in handling transnational issues like climate change or universal jurisdiction cases.